Three ballot questions to consider on Nov. 4

Wednesday

Oct 29, 2008 at 12:01 AMOct 29, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Eleven South Shore communities will have four ballot questions to consider Tuesday, Nov. 4. Questions 1, 2, and 3 are binding, while Question 4 is a non-binding public policy question to gather information for legislators.

Carol Meyer

On Nov. 4, Weymouth voters will help decide who will be the next President of the United States. As if that weren’t enough to think about, there are also four controversial ballot questions to consider.

The three binding statewide ballot questions relate to reducing and then eliminating the state personal income tax; decriminalizing marijuana use and instituting a new system of civil penalties; and prohibiting dog races on which betting or wagering occurs.

State Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, said it’s important for voters to realize that the three questions are binding. “These are not [just] questions gauging voters’ opinions on these issues [except Question 4],” he said. “No legislative approval is needed for them to become law.”

Weymouth polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 4, for the State/Presidential election.

QUESTION 1 — STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX

Besides concerns centering on the state’s need to borrow at higher interest rates and tap funds set aside for “rainy day” use in order to cover current local aid obligations should Question 1 pass, local officials have their own reasons for opposing it.

A Yes vote would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the whole tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.A No vote would make no change in state income tax laws. Massachusetts has a flat personal income tax rate of 5.3 percent of federal adjusted gross income.

Weymouth School Committee members approved a non-binding resolution that warns of significant reductions in state aid if the state income tax is abolished.

“We would not be just talking about how many teachers would be cut,” he said before the committee approved the resolution on Thursday, Oct. 23. “We would be talking about how many school buildings that we would have to close.”

Weymouth town councilors have not stated a collective view on the ballot question, but Councilor-at-large Patrick O’Connor said approval of the referendum would result in the layoffs of police, firefighters and teachers.

“I’ve taken a stand against Question 1,” he said on Monday, Oct. 20. “I don’t believe this is the right approach to take and that it would not solve anything. I understand where the people who support the ballot question are coming from and that there is a certain amount of government waste that needs to be addressed. I also understand the frustration of not having a flat 5 percent state income tax rate the voters approved several years ago, but approval of the ballot question would result in the layoffs of police officers, firefighters, and teachers. “

He said there needs to be a public debate on lowering taxes.

State Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, said he realizes some people are angry about the then-5 percent personal income tax being raised more than a decade ago (billed as a temporary move) but never restored to the original percentage. Whatever side of the issues citizens are on, though, Hedlund warns, “These binding questions would have the force of law if passed.”

The Committee for Small Government supports Question 1 on the platform of “eliminating government waste.” The Committee claims that a “yes” vote would create many new Massachusetts jobs and would not raise property or any other taxes or require cuts in essential government services.

Opponents note that this initiative would slash state revenues by more than $12 billion a year – nearly 40 percent of the state budget.

QUESTION 2 — POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA

Passage of Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. This would be enforced by issuing citations and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system (CORI).

Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100.

Those under the age of 18 caught with an ounce or less would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they successfully complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. Offenders who do not complete the drug awareness program within one year could also be required to pay a higher penalty – as much as $1,000.

Offenders under age 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Under the proposed law, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities to impose any other penalty, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent.

At the same time, the proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws prohibiting the public use of marijuana and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

“An ounce of marijuana is not a small amount,” he said. “We believe marijuana is a gateway drug and it should not be decriminalized.”

Fuller said an ounce of marijuana provides a drug dealer a sufficient amount to sell on the street.

“I would not decriminalize marijuana period,” he said. “A drug dealer would have more to carry around to sell. Marijuana is a gateway drug. I have never met a heroin or cocaine user that did not smoke marijuana before moving onto using those drugs.”

State Rep. Garret Bradley, D- Hingham agrees with Fuller.

He said decriminalizing marijuana “would be a big step in the wrong direction” and would set a dangerous precedent. “Marijuana is a gateway drug that starts you down the path to more dangerous drugs,” he said. “If we minimize its use, we’re basically sending the message to young people that it’s OK to do this.”

Fuller said Weymouth police support the Massachusetts District Attorney’s opposition to decriminalizing marijuana.

“Marijuana decriminalization is an endorsement of substance abuse and dangerous criminal activity, and sends the wrong message to young people,” said Michael O’Keefe, president of the Massachusetts District Attorney’s Association in a votes information booklet.

He said a single ounce of marijuana has a $600 street sale value and it can be sold to 56 buyers.

“Marijuana contains nine times the mind altering THS as 30 years ago , (and) is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco, (and) is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions,” O’Keefe said.

He said marijuana users are 10 times more likely to be involved in car crashes and associated with juvenile crime.

“A large percentage of criminal arrestees, (approximately 40 percent) test positive for marijuana,” O’Keefe said. “Decriminalization is opposed by law enforcement, educators, health care, business and community leaders.”

Whitney A. Taylor of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy holds an entirely different view. One of the committee’s biggest arguments against the current law is that when individuals are placed under arrest, their names are entered into the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system. “It lists what the individual was arrested for but not the outcome, and that information is available to the public,” Taylor said. “We don’t support or condone marijuana use. This is just a smart criminal justice reform. The sky is not falling in and more people will not be breaking the law.”

Conversely, the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, which opposes Question 2, said in a recent press release that “passage of Question 2 will strip away the privacy offenders currently have in their CORI records and make their record of civil fines for marijuana possession open to public inspection.”

The press release further stated that if a case is criminal, the CORI laws will bar most public disclosure; but if the matter is civil, the Cori laws do not apply and the offender’s civil fine for marijuana possession becomes a public record, “available to anyone who wants it. Under current Massachusetts law, most employers can only receive ‘publicly accessible CORI.’”

Taylor notes that penalties for other marijuana-related crimes, such as sales or DUIs, remain untouched.

Furthermore, Taylor said, taxpayers would save $30 million a year in arrest costs. “Do the citations and confiscate the marijuana, but keep the cops on the streets to fight more violent and serious crimes,” she said. “That money should be kept in police coffers.”

The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association further noted that “Marijuana charges represent an infinitesimal percentage of police work, and Question 2 does not reduce the time police will spend processing these cases.”

Taylor claims that passage of Question 2 would not increase marijuana use. “Eleven other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in marijuana use,” she said.

The committee’s platform is, “Let the punishment fit the crime.”

Last month, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office threw out a claim by the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy that the state’s district attorneys had been intentionally spreading false information about the effects of decriminalization, The Statehouse News Service reported at the time.

Question proponents claimed that the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association had falsely asserted that the measure would “normalize” marijuana use, reverse a decline in youth marijuana use, lead to an increase in drug-related crime, and increase DUIs.

The Statehouse News Service had earlier reported, following a Sept. 17 press conference, that “opponents of Question 2 incorporated everything from alcohol use to OxyContin to gangster rap in their argument against the proposal, a stark contrast from the proponents who described the measure as a benign effort to refocus police on violent crime and to save costs on unnecessary arrests.”

Supporters of marijuana decriminalization, on the other hand, note that laws governing the sale, trafficking, and purchase of marijuana would be left unchanged, as would any laws related to impaired driving.

Taylor said that “if everyone would stop and listen – and consider what Question 2 would do, they would realize that personal possession of one ounce or less remains illegal, but would not carry a criminal penalty.”

The 11 Massachusetts district attorneys unanimously oppose Question 2. The press release issued recently by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association states that Question 2 “represents an extreme departure from current Massachusetts law and will drastically change the way drugs affect our daily lives. Question 2 will allow drug dealers and users to possess and carry up to an ounce of marijuana subject only to a civil penalty of $100 – less than the fine for a speeding ticket. . . . “State and national data indicate that, after many years of effort, drug use among teens is finally going down. Why should we pass a ballot question that signals to our children that marijuana use is ok?”

With respect to the issue of denying student financial aid if caught in possession of marijuana, the press release states that “Under current federal law, the only way an offender can be denied a student loan is if he is convicted of a drug offense while he is in school and already receiving federal aid, and then he loses it for one year. He can lessen that one-year period if he completes drug rehabilitation. If he is convicted again, under the same conditions, he loses his loan eligibility for two years.”

QUESTION 3 — DOG RACING

Should dog racing involving betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs be banned in Massachusetts?

That is one of the binding questions voters will decide at the Nov. 4 ballot box. A Yes vote would prohibit such dog racing effective Jan. 1, 2010. A No vote would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.

According to Jennifer Reardon, volunteer for The Committee to Protect Dogs, a massive grassroots effort to pass this referendum is underway. A similar law currently exists in 34 states. Proponents allege inhumane treatment and unacceptable living conditions for some of the dogs.

This project supports the Greyhound Protection Act, which is endorsed by many organizations and community leaders throughout Massachusetts, including the Animal Rescue League of Boston, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Control Officers Association of Mass., the Humane Society of the United States, and major animal shelters in the state as well as scores of veterinarians, dozens of lawmakers, and hundreds of community leaders, Reardon said.

The Committee to Protect Dogs has prepared a report documenting information specific to Raynham Park and Wonderland Greyhound Park. According to the committee, all information is recent and nearly all data relates to ongoing practices. Sources of information are state records, industry statements, and mainstream news organizations, much of which has been submitted by the racing organizations themselves, Reardon said.

Linda Jensen, president of Racing Owners Assisting Racers, Inc., posted a message on the www.protectdogsandjobs.orgWeb site opposing Question 3. “[Passage of] Question 3 will put people out of work in the state’s already faltering economy – at least 1,000 full- and part-time workers in a state with already high unemployment figures for college graduates and other displaced professionals,” she stated.

Jensen notes that The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition was formed for the specific purpose of defeating Question 3. “The coalition represents the interests of racing greyhounds, greyhound adoption, working families that rely on jobs created by the Massachusetts greyhound racing industry, and dog owners under the state-regulated stewardship of the Wonderland and Raynham-Taunton tracks who are opposed to the passage of Question 3,” she said.

Jensen further states that racing greyhounds are “under the constant supervision of the state police and the Massachusetts Racing Commission and are under the care of certified veterinarians. As a result of their careful scrutiny and faithful oversight, there has never been one documented case of dog abuse in any licensed track in Massachusetts,” she said.

The Wonderland Greyhound Park Web site posts the “Protect Greyhounds and Jobs in Massachusetts – Vote NO on 3” logo on its homepage.

Conversely, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claims that according to state records, more than 800 Massachusetts racing greyhounds have been injured since 2002, including dogs who suffered broken legs, paralysis, and even death from cardiac arrest. In a statement included in the official Massachusetts “Information for Voters” pamphlet mailed to all households in the state, MSPCA president Carter J. Luke stated that according to the Massachusetts State Racing Commission, “greyhounds have recently died from a mysterious illness and tested positive for cocaine, an illegal stimulant.”

In a press release issued recently by Massachusetts Greyhound Kennel Operators and Owners opposing Question 3, greyhound kennel operator/owner John O’Donnell said that, “Massachusetts voters need to know the truth. A percentage of our purses is taken out and used to ensure that dogs are taken care of for adoption… Greyhounds are athletes, and they become pets after they retire from racing… Anyone who has been around a racing kennel realizes that our love for these dogs surpasses our financial investment as motivation to keep them as fit as possible.”

Claiming facts have been a casualty in the campaign over whether to ban dog racing, proponents of Question 3 launched a site Friday to challenge opponents, in part through the use of a wag-o-meter. The Web site is www.question3facts.org.

If passed, the law would take effect in 2010, allowing employees of these facilities more than a year to seek other employment before the operations would close permanently.

Bradley said that the racing business is a declining one in the state. He is hopeful that jobs could be kept by using these facilities in a different manner and plans to have a more definitive statement in the near future.

Hedlund is listed on the Web site www.ProtectDogs.org as a Massachusetts lawmaker endorsing the ballot question.